>> this senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party, and as i have said before, and you will hear it today loud and clear, this is the people's seat. host: in his victory last night, scott brown said he won the vote -- scott brown won the vote of independents. "boston globe" headline says the obama health care plan is in peril. harry reid, the majority leader, is vowing to see scott brown as soon as the proper

paperwork has been received. that is the way he put it. senator jim webb, a democrat from virginia, is urging, actually, that "we postpone any health care vote until after scott brown is sworn in." and republic has taken ted kennedy's senate seat. democrats, call 202-737-0002, republicans, 202-737-0001. if you are an independent, call 202-628-0205. some of the other headlines on the front page here say, frustration with the status quo fuels emotions and turnout. a rebellious air sweeps even kennedy turf, a story from

hyannisport there. scott brown 1, 51.9% of the vote. martha coakley, 47.1%. and joe kennedy won that one percent -- that 1%. that is from "the boston globe." if you look at the "boston herald," their right that a revolution begins. it was the second time in massachusetts history, the shot heard round the world from coast to coast and surely in the halls of congress. scott brown won this one fair and square with his down-to- earth charm, hard work, and his forthright position on issues. with the help of that much disparaged by the opposition pickup truck. he was the right candidate at the right time with the right message, and that message is one that the white house and congressional democrats can no

longer ignore. after all, if the people of massachusetts can send a republican to the u.s. senate to fill the seat that kennedy held for 47 years -- first call, todd, scott brown, a republican has won. what do you think? caller: i think that legislation for health care ought to be pushed through before the heat gets seated. these delays tactics for i do not know how many months and months of delaying all the procedural things in congress -- i think right now, put it through, get us health care. a republican or a democrat, if you will allow me to say this last thing -- either with a pre- existing condition, health condition, or if we get sick now in 2010, 2011, and health care

does not go through -- and you can be a republican, too -- i think the massachusetts republicans and democrats will be very foolish for putting this man in office. host: collar, it is unlikely that any vote will occur because senator webb from virginia is saying do not do this. what do you think? caller: it is time again for the democrats to roll up their sleeves. we may have a shot for the remainder of the year until the end of the obama administration to take on the ross perot-style of roll up your sleeves, talk plain english, and push and stick to your guns and state -- and say what you mean and mean what you say. get something done in american politics. host: long island city, new york. thanks. a scholar, billy, who did you vote for? caller: i voted for scott brown.

he has a well known to me for many years. he is a frequent guest on one of the talk-radio shows on wtkk in boston. it definitely is time for change in america. we just cannot afford the health care bill. a lot of president obama's policies are just unsustainable. they are just totally upsetting many of the americans that vote regularly. i think is definitely time for change. i think change has come to america thanks to ted kennedy's seat here in boston. host: was there a moment in the race or the campaign or a statement or anything that turned you in the direction of scott brown? as an independent, all eyes have been on folks like you. caller: for many years now, i changed from being a lifelong democrat here in boston.

martha coakley, i think she just proved -- we love our red sox and she has no clue who curt schilling is or was. there was no doubt in my mind for the past year that i was going to vote in my mind for scott brown. i knew that he would probably run for the seat because there was nobody else to replace ted kennedy. i think it is just everything that could have gone right did go right this time around, and hopefully scott brown comes through with all of his promises and he fulfills his campaign promises and comes through for america. host: that was billy from boston. this is from boston.com. you can see one of these red and blue maps here on the screen. you see the scott brown area

where he won most of the state. you see the martha coakley areas, places like crofton, were sister, -- worcester, springfield. mr. brown ran strongest in the suburbs of boston, where the independent voters who make up a majority in massachusetts turned out in large numbers. muscogmartha coakley did best in urban areas, but her margins were not large enough to carry her to victory. rasmussen reports did some polling, and these are their figures from last night. in the end, brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters 73% to 25%. he also picked up 21% from democrats.

our polling shows that 53% of voters are democrats, 21% republican, and 26% not affiliated with either party. union workers went for martha coakley by just six points, 52% to 46%. georgia, good morning, joe, on the republican line. caller: this is the greatest thing that ever happened to america. i am meeting with a couple of tea party members. we put together a coalition of 47 small businesses. i predict that the republicans and the tea party members -- that is the coalition that me and oscar bone put together. we will have a landslide win over president obama. you have the tea party people of conservatives like myself -- i have been a 40-year conservatives -- we are all getting together. the small businesses in america,

we all want less government and less taxes. the total opposite of what obama wants big you are seeing the star, paul, of one of the biggest landslide whins of the republicans in 2012. i was so excited last night, i could not go to sleep. host: michael kranish of the "boston globe" will be here later on. in the water will be here. also eric cantor, the minority whip of the u.s. house. for now, bush on the democrats live from jackson, wyoming. what do you make of the race last night and what it means? caller: i tell you, when people start voting because of whose baseball team they are in favor of, this country is in pretty bad shape. we live in a fascist country. even the obama administration, who is being ruled by the pharmaceutical companies, the health industry, the insurance industry, they are the ones that

have the say. we did not give out our message. the message should have been that we need a public option. nancy pelosi and harry reid fail the american people. when president obama took office, he put the war's black on budget from where president bush took time off -- he put the wars back on budget from where president bush took them off. obama's budget -- bush had it off budget. the american people do not realize that bush was going out and borrowing money but never giving us the real numbers. now we have the most dangerous thing in america today, black water. black water is a hidden army run by a a religious fanatic.

you just watch what happens with this group. host: moving on to dubuque, iowa. scott brown, a republican, has won the senate seat. caller: obama and the white house cronies, you need to watch out because the independents are coming for you, baby. host: what is the message for you here? caller: i want to see if the democrats get it finally, the democrats. when bob mcdonnell won -- and when chris christie won new jersey, it was a local issue. policies, especially health care, i think the message from the american people is clear that we do not want it. when i listen to these callers, they want a public option. they do not get it.

they do not want to ask people do not want it. they do not want the government running our health care industry. there are just better ways to do this. it is like fixing a clock with a hammer. anyone that has done anything with the government knows that the government does not deliver goods and services like the private industry. pharmaceutical, health insurance, big oil, is not our enemies. they are our friends, families, our country. host: president obama 1 massachusetts 62% to 32%. this shows the changing times here produces from "the wall street journal." they talk about scott brown winning 52% to 47%. president obama won with 69% of

the vote for his race for says his-versus the republican. moving on to the editorial page of the washington journal, they write that yesterday -- of the wall street journal, the right that it needn't be. the president remains more popular than his policies and voters want him to succeed. but they are sold out -- but they are also telling me needs to steer a more moderate less partisan course, return to the back into the and, t-shaped his political rise." clinton, maryland, robert, what do you say? caller: i do not think the republicans should take any solace in the fact that this gentleman won the election. this guy ran as an independent. this is an anti-incumbency vote against democrats and republicans for not getting

anything done. the american people are tired of it. they want something done. what hurt the democrats mostly was the loss of the public option, because the public option was not in the health- care bill. it turned a lot of people against it. host: caller, what is your take now on the healthcare bill? we are seeing all sorts of varied possibilities. what would you like to see happen now? caller: they have to pass it, regardless of this. regardless of them having the ability for people to show for another position as a major point. they have to pass this bill. if they do not, then i think democrats will be completely discredited. host: 1 more editorial from "the boston globe." martha coakley's campaign lacks clear definition and never found a message to blunt voters' anti-

insider feelings. most of democratic america would be resting a lot easier if the election were solely on copley. it was not. for now, scott brown deserves to savor a truly historic victory. "boston globe" editorial there. one last call, sebring, florida, independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning, paul. this is definitely a message going to washington and this administration that the people are fed up with president obama's policies, him going around the world, that nothing the usa -- bad mouthing the u.s.a., tripling the debt. this is strictly something that

the voters right now are totally against. thank you. host: we will continue to take your phone calls on the massachusetts race and move it forward to issues here in washington legislatively. also the rest of this busy election season. we will get some contexts from our next two guests, michael kranish of "the boston globe," and amy walter of the hot line. first, short pieces from each of the candidates last night in massachusetts. >> i hope they are paying close attention because tonight the independent voice of massachusetts has spoken. [cheers and applause] from springfield to cape cod, the voters of this commonwealth defied the odds and the experts. tonight the independent majority has delivered a great victory.

[cheers and applause] i think the people of massachusetts for electing me as your next united states senator. [cheers and applause] >> 41, 41, 41. twitter.com/cspanwj >> >> i wish we were here with better news tonight, but we are not. and i want to take this moment first of all for all of you in this room and those of you who are probably still out working.

you poured your hearts and souls into this campaign, and there are thousands of you. literally, we had thousands of people out on the streets since september. i want to say thank you for everything that you did. obviously not just for me but for the campaign and what we stood for in this campaign. host: at the table now, michael kranish, political reporter from the "boston globe. we go to massachusetts with this report from your paper. tell us more about the anger in the commonwealth. guest: well, martha coakley was up 30 points a week ago. there was this anger that she was not campaigning as vigorously as democrats wanted her to. she thought this was going to be a cakewalk. she was not on the air for a while and a lot of people were upset. basically there is an incumbent here -- i cannot tell you there

is anger against the republican party, but scott brown tapped into the anger and the votes can away with it. host: amy walter also joins us, editor of the hot line. take us to the national phase. what does this race mean? guest: there are a lot of implications for this race. one is that the president's legislative agenda and the senate that no longer has had 60 votes per the other piece is the anger among independent voters. these were the voters that gave president obama his victory in 2008. he won independent voters in a place like massachusetts overwhelmingly in 2008, but he also carry them in places like virginia and new jersey, which went republican for governor this last year. what we are seeing is that independents not only are turning away from democrats but in huge numbers. what is fascinating to me is that we have independent voters in virginia and

massachusetts, three very different states of voting by the same margins for a republican candidate, which suggests that for democrats going into 2010, midterm elections, they have got to figure out how to get those voters back into their camp or they are going to suffer significant losses in the election. host: more of your calls in the massachusetts senate race, what it means nationally, for health care, the legislative agenda. the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for democrats, republicans, an independents. four massachusetts residents, 202-628-0184 if you want to call in. how did this play itself out in the ads, in the speeches, in the right ups? everything he put forward? guest: scott brown's signature phrase was that this is not ted

kennedy's see, this is the people's seat. while it is true that democrats outnumber republicans registered by three to one, the biggest group our independence, half the state or more. that is the largest group. he knew that, he ran as that. he was not that well known statewide, but well-known enough that when he ran, he tapped into that and was very successful. host: amy walter, again, on the independents around the country, the scott brown lesson, how will his approach the translated by other candidates? what specific things are you expecting to hear around the country? guest: certainly running against washington and the establishment is absolutely key. again, we have already seen some of this playing in 2009 and some of this oft-year elections. we are already seeing it in some of the campaign is running right now, some of the candidates

getting ready for 2010. it is tapping into that frustration that the 2008 election was supposed to be about change, said the independent voters. we wanted to elect a president and a congress that wanted to do things differently than they were doing in the year's previous. instead, what voters have seen is essentially more of the same. the health-care debate has really put a focus on the sausage making part of washington, which is never a good side for anybody to see. certainly, the american public turned off now by what it has been witnessing for the past few months in that debate. again, the focus back on the economy and jobs, the fundamental issues that are driving this election, what we saw up in massachusetts, what we are seeing nationally is that when candidates tap into that, that becomes where they can really bring voters along with them.

talking about other extraneous issues is not where the voters want to be today. they wanted to write to the heart of it. host: what will this do to fund raising, then? guest: fundraising for candidates? i think it is going to do a number of things. certainly it is going to help republican candidates as they are raising money. we saw scott brown raise a tremendous amount of money off the internet, the purview of liberal the aircraft that he has done so well in the past two alexian's prince got grounded a great job. i think we are going -- -- scott brown did a great job. we will see republicans recruiting around the country now, looking at this race. i think we will see a lot more jump into races where the republican party has not been able to find a candidate. already we are starting to hear rumblings about mike pence, for example, the congressman from indiana, taking a look at the indiana senate seat held by

democrat evan bayh. we'll see what he ends up doing. host: michael kranish, tell us more about scott brown. who is he, and what is he going to bring to washington? guest: he is 50 years old, a state senator. his wife is a well-known television anchor. his daughter was on "american idol." she was also a star on her college basketball team. it might have been the campaign that fred thompson one around tennessee, writing in a pickup truck around -- riding in a pickup truck around tennessee. martha coakley made some ga ffes. scott brown is conservative, independent, opposes the democrats' health care plan. he opposes some things on global warming. democrats will not be thrilled

to see him take the seat. host: scott, another independent, go ahead. caller: i appreciate on both sides the analytics, but the way i see it is this. martha coakley was not rejected. her method -- her message did get out, the problem was it was rejected. it is a rejection of barack obama and his policies. it should tell republicans out there, we are not interested in bottled republicans. we are interested in conservatives and those principles. i am an independent. i live in massachusetts my whole life. the people's republic of massachusetts is what we called it. it was a referendum on barack obama. host: let's hear from our guests, beginning with a walter

-- with amy walter. guest: i think it was a referendum on the policies in washington, the policies put forward by the president. when you reject a candidate, a democratic candidate, you have rejected a president. at the same time, you have a president whose approval rating in massachusetts remains relatively high, certainly much higher than it is nationally. in some polls he is close to 60%, it is probably around the mid 50's. what you have in president obama is somebody that the majority of people in massachusetts tend to like, but the policies we are seeing in washington and the politics in washington are the real turnoffs here, and where the caller really hit it on the head is the issue of being able to get something done in washington. that is what voters were promised in 2008, that is what the president ran on, that is what a lot of democrats ran on in 2006 and 2008, and voters

have not seen those returns. host: michael kranish, speak more on the headline in the washington post. "c-- guest: martha coakley was off the air for a while, she was not campaigning all the time. there were columns in the newspaper including my own saying why isn't she out there across the border across the state campaigning. the monday morning quarterbacking, or wednesday morning quarterbacking, i am sure there will be bickering back and forth. but her campaign had some mistakes and she paid the price for it. host: we heard a number of callers in recent days -- explain what the curt schilling issue is, and did it make a difference? guest: let me explain the background here for those who do not know.

curt schilling of course is the pitcher who with the bloody red sox went out on the mound and propelled the red sox into the world series in 2004, which they went on to win. so he is an iconic figure in massachusetts. he is a republican, the martha coakley made a reference saying that he was a yankees fan. the radio interview who was talking to her about this said, "curt schilling, a yankees fan?" and she sort of stumbled. that sound bite was played over again. guest: next call from rockaway beach, missouri. ed on the republican line. go-ahead. caller: well, my question is about president obama. my question is, we do not know what we are talking about was one of his statements when the

tea party was going last summer. i hope you are listening, mr. obama, because the people are not going to put up with this. i hear it more and more and more. i used to be a republican i used to be a democrat, and the democrats stab people in the back. i left the democratic party 10 years ago because of this. if the government does not start looking, we are going to have a whole new congress. it is not just going to be democrats, it is going to be republicans, too. i have a feeling that you are going to see within the next five years that people who have been in office for a very long time there in washington, they are going to go bye-bye. host: amy walter, what are you hearing there? guest: i certainly think this is what we are hearing nationally as well. this is the problem when you

have a one-party state in massachusetts. we have a one-party establishment in washington, d.c. the idea of a check and balance on that party becomes very strong, especially in a time in massachusetts where you have lots of scandal at the local level and nationally when you are in the middle of a recession when there are other big problems going on. you have a president who walked into an already very contentious time, beyond just what he had campaigned on. he walked into a recession, a growing frustration about the lack of action from washington, and fundamentally what voters have seen is that democrats came in and did not really address the number-one issue that they said they wanted congress to address, which was the economy and jobs. they have been spending a great deal of time fighting amongst themselves over health care. that has sent exactly the wrong

message to the public. at the same time, you have among a whole bunch of voters a sense that the country sort of lost its way, whether it is wall street bonuses, whether it is the amount of money that has gone out to other industries like the auto industry and to banks. the sense of frustration that a whole lot of money has gone out the door and not a lot of it has shown up in the form of jobs and success in their own financial situation. host: how long will scott brown hold his seat for, michael kranish? guest: ted kennedy was elected in 2006, so we're talking about six years fulfilling. host: so you see him as a guide it will run again on his own? guest: i would certainly think so. host: lafayette, louisiana. john, democrats line, good

morning. what do you think about the race last night? caller: that move. the democrats -- say that the democrats fought too long with this health care bill, when we could have passed this with this number. for the last three years we have been talking about jobs, but let me get with this. i doubt very seriously this is the mood of the entire country is is, i have started to believe that we have short memories. we must have forgot the past eight years, who was in control of the white house, the government. i need the american people to think about that. it is time to wake up and stop being lazy. host: this from the ap about scott brown. "the senator and let upset democrats in this election said he does not think it was a referendum on president barack obama. he said he also does not think his victory over martha coakley was anything that she did.

brown said instead that he was able to tap into growing aggravation among voters, including independents, about gridlock in washington." guest: i think that is right. i have covered many races in which people say this is what the single race means, and this is -- and then they say we have over interpreted what this race means. i think he is recognizing that right away, that this victory is a result of many factors and we do not know if it will change anything. certainly there is a loud message here in washington, and part of that is understanding what voters have been angry about in 2008 when they elected obama and the democrats and what they were angry about last night. host: sanford cisco, don, an independent, you are on with amy kranish of -- with in the walters of the hot line and michael kranish of the boston globe. caller: first of all, i am

amazed that a republican one in massachusetts. it is mindboggling. the chappaquiddick guy wins six times in a row, and a republican wins now. anyway, i do not think this is a referendum on obama. everybody thinks ted kennedy is a great person or was a great person. he may or may not have been. i do not know. i never met the man. health care needs to pass. health care needs to pass. we american poor people need to have health care. so the only way i can see this passing is the senate bill has passed and the house has to pass the senate bill. unless this guy is not going to stand on the republican democratic party line and go against it. host: let's hear from amy walter on this. what added perspective do you

have on the health-care debate at this point moving forward? guest: scott brown certainly campaigned on the fact that he would vote against the health care bill in its current form. i do not think anyone thinks he is going to sit down in washington and change his mind. the question now, back to the house, which is, will the house members who narrowly passed the health-care bill in the first place take the senate bill that has not been amended where there are still many differences between the house bill that they had passed earlier and just take the whole form and pass it? and and basically make up the differences in subsequent legislation, come back to the table later ron and make those changes? i think the caller makes up a good point, and this is the debate now in washington -- what the democrats lose by not having health care reform? there are a lot of democrats right now, especially moderates

and conservative democrats, many of whom had voted for the health-care bill in the house, who are looking at what happened in massachusetts saying exactly what the caller did -- is this what happens in massachusetts? if a democrat can lose their, we are in big trouble in all kinds of places. this health care legislation is going to be a big problem for us and i do not want to have to touch this again. let's go away and refocus our energies back on health care. the other sentiment coming from a lot of democrats, again, even from conservatives, is the idea that if they do not passed the health care now, they will spend the last few months coming up with nothing, going back to the american public and saying we did not get health care done, we are going to rally republicans -- to blame republicans, but i do not think that will have much resonance with voters. now we are going to handle jobs in the economy. how are voters going to feel

about trusting democrats on jobs and the economy when they could not get done what they said they were going to get done earlier this year in health care? it is a very difficult conundrum for democrats to beat in at this point. what they had hoped to do before scott brown ononeof the zero and was to -- won -- it seems in the minds of most democrats that i talk to last night, the idea being that health care does have to pass. they cannot afford to go into a midterm election with a loss like this. host: our guests are in the walter, editor in chief of "hot line." joining us here in our studio is michael kranish of the "boston globe," the political reporter from the "global." he also co-authored "john f.

kerry: the complete biography." now you have a republican in the senate seat. what does that mean for folks up there? guest: a lot of house members are concerned about their jobs. last night, one of the first persons interviewed was a gentleman was a republican-who was a republican, and there are lots of people saying if scott brown can take kennedy policy, a lot of republicans are saying i maybe i can take the see that so and so holds. guest: we are reading here, dee, that you voted for president obama but also for scott brown. tell us what your thinking. caller: i am originally a new yorker, lived here for about six years. i voted for bush in 2004, obama in 2008. but i have begun to really -- i

disapprove of his policies. i believe he has behaved as an ideologue. dissenters have been dismissed as racists. i think as mr. kranish will probably note, since he wrote about jefferson, when jefferson began to behave like an ideologue when it came to this embargo, the federalists made a comeback, especially here in massachusetts. one of the turning point for me -- because i am an independent amo, my husband is a republicano was always going to vote for scott brown. a fire that said "this bush is brown, brown is bush," i said that there was nothing here but a anti-bush referendum, and that

we would vote for martha coakley because we were anti-bush. guest: talking about candidates in the past is difficult. there was an effort to tie mr. brown to bush, cheney, etc., but now we are removed from that. host: amy walter, there was a lot in that call -- the woman was an independent, african- american, one from president bush to president obama to scott brown. guest: i think the point about bush was very important. this is the debate within the democratic party right now, which is do we spend a whole lot of time talking about the fact that it was the bush white house and republican congress that took us to the place where we are today and to focus on that, or do we go beyond that and say, all right, we were dealt a really bad hand and here is how we are going to fix it. voters clearly are not

interested in the past. we thought originally -- and i admit that i did, too -- in a place like massachusetts, tying a republican to bush could work. it may not work in virginia, another swing states, and massachusetts is so blue in the republican label is so dramatic. the bottom line, it is not 2008 any more, and this caller is a perfect example of that. there is no interest in pointing fingers, there is an interest in getting things done. when martha coakley failed to do from the beginning was to find herself, who she was, what she stood for, and how she was going to go to washington not simply to carry senator kennedy's legacy, because as we heard from other callers, there was a sense that they may have liked him but they really wanted to get a sense of who this person replacing him was. they were not interested at all in handing a mentaantle to thisw

person. that is why you heard scott brown talk extensively about how this was the people's seat and not senator kennedy's seat. she did not do the reach of campaigning and focusing on the people out there. she did not do it on tv, either, never getting the chance to say here is who i am coming here is how i am going to talk about this anger and independence. that did not happen. hostguest: let me make one point about people who do not know massachusetts well. it is a very blue state. we had fun lucci and mitt romney. the romney campaign did pay attention to this. republicans and democrats across the state were never voted for

-- have voted for republicans a lot. host: how much money was raised? guest: i am not sure how much at in all. host: you can see geographically the red areas are for mr. brown. you can see he won most of the state geographically. but we will point out in the story that the key was the boston suburbs, even though the city was one for martha coakley. any insight into that? guest: he ran a good statewide race, and he was very effective in that host: let's hear from warren, michigan. denise, democrats. good morning. caller: the reason i am calling is i am hoping just because a republican one in massachusetts does not mean-because a republican won in massachusetts does not mean the house bill will go under. my husband and i are unemployed,

we have no insurance. one of us work for the auto industry. i work for a bank, a dozen works for security -- my husband works for security. i'm hoping people not -- i am hoping that people in detroit to not work -- and of a four killed patrick again echo this piec host: "gop win doesn't mean health reform is dead." he makes several points, but one of them is this. "i am mindful how difficult it will be to get a few republicans to sign on to a deal on health care, but there is very little in the latest version of the health care bill that main's two republican senators have not supported in the past and could

not in the future. both olympia snowe and susan collins flew to the leadership test last year. massachusetts has now given them a second chance to redeem their reputations and political fortunes in a state that has always valued independence over of party loyalty." amy walter, what do you think? guest: there are a lot of different rumors flying around about how amenable senators know is to the compromise. the senator olympia snowe is to the compromise. the idea of maybe trying to bring in more than just one republican and see how many he can try to persuade to get back to the bargaining table to make the changes necessary to get something passed. i also want to address the caller who made a very good point about the frustration out there of people who are unemployed or lacking health care.

that has been the big issue in this health care debate, which has been that the energy has been much more on the side of the folks who do not want change and then on the side of the people who do pri in orde. in order for congress to work this out, they have to hear more from people who do what that change. congress represents certain districts, so there are going to be certain districts were the cause are in tents on the side of, and other calls that are on the side against. we have seen across the board, and we saw this in massachusetts, one of the earliest polls, that for people who are voting for brown, they overwhelmingly disliked the idea of health care reform. the people have supporting martha coakley felt relatively okay about health care reform but were not as passionate about it. host: we have another caller

from massachusetts on the air. we will get to you in a second- rate i want to ask michael kranish-we will get to you in a second -- i want to ask michael kranish, about 3/4 of them voted for scott brown according to the numbers out there. independents -- do they get out to vote more often than other voters in massachusetts? guest: they do not have a party apparatus. there is no independent party to bring the voters out, so the candidates from each major party has to appeal to them. they turned out in such great numbers, and that really tells you something. if that happens across other states in the country in the fall, there will be great consequences. one of the questions i have, does obama today we calibrate? does he pulled back on health care and say i have heard the message and i have a new plan? it is very reminiscent of what happened with the clinton

health-care plan in 1994. it was a big loss in midterm elections. right now, obama perhaps has the chance to say i heard the warning early -- maybe he will change course. it was the year-ago today that he was inaugurated, that there were all the crowd on the mall. that is what a lot of people think heat -- that is what he should be thinking about today -- do i push this through or do i hold off? host: peter, from massachusetts, who did you vote for? guest: i voted for scott brown. i am an independent, 60 years old, been a registered independent since i first registered to vote. i always voted for the individual had never the party, tended to vote more democratic in national elections and republican in local and state elections. host: what did you hear from scott brown that you liked? guest: caller: i did not think e

ran a negative campaign. he has a refreshen point of view, he stuck to the issues. there was no negative campaigning on his part. the one thing i want to touch upon or get a comment from you folks was the terrorist attend christmas day -- the terrorist attempts christmas day. i think that may have pushed scott brown over the top against martha coakley, who took a very liberal and defensive stance, where scott brown stepped up and spoke his mind. i would like to hear a comment on that. i do believe is a refreshing day in massachusetts and the country. host: let's start with amy walter of the hot line. guest: there was a debate that took place soon after the first of the year, and there was a discussion about what to do in afghanistan, where martha

coakley had come out in opposition to sending more troops there. scott brown supported the president, president obama's actions in afghanistan. i think there was the sense that this was going to be -- this was not, again, i think the main issue that the candidates were addressing or that the terrorism piece played into that it certainly scott brown talked about this issue in his campaign, mentioning the fact that he was a reserve officer, a national guard officer. i think it led to the bigger issue, which the caller pointed out was this whole image of who scott brown was. somebody who served in the military, somebody who ran a positive campaign, somebody who seemed like an outsider, somebody who came across well. i think all of that combined ultimately proved to be the winning combination. host: michael kranish?

guest: he was out there pretty strong with the terrorism occurred. the sense was that martha coakley was not as active on the issue, not campaigning on the day this was happening as much. it left the impression is some voters' mines that she was not as active. host: next caller, republican, what did you make of this race? caller: it was a message to politicians that they are not doing enough on the number one problem, unemployment. i have been unemployed for a year now. i have gone to walmart, and you will not believe this. this walmart that i have gone to, a lot of retail stores and everything else -- i lived in tampa. katrina was five years ago. i cannot get hired or even an interview because i am not a katrina victim. does that make sense to you?

our congress people need to get rid of that right now. wall street is making money. main street is hurting. we need jobs, so can't our congress -- i call the white house, my governor, our senators. i have written letters and call these people. i need a job. i like millions of americans -- i am like millions of americans. get the money coming off of wall street and get it down to the people. our congress people need to call big corporations, and our president needs to call ceo's and say hire some people. we do not want to go to wal-mart and stand in line. you are making some money, hire some people. that is the number-one issue. host: let's hear from our guests, beginning with mr. kranish in the studio. guest: that colored tap into what is going on. -- that caller tapped into what is going on.

the president has talked about jobs, and i think every member of congress has heard the same message. the democrats are trying to tap into the voter anger over wall street. they have tried to do that and have not been successful. one story i am following is the financial regulation effort. scott brown does not agree with some of the things that democrats want to do on that, so we will have some fights on that, specifically what to do if there is another stimulus plan. host: amy walter, "the new york times" writes that david axelrod did not view the results as a repudiation of the white house agenda, but his knowledge that the administration needs to do a more effective job of signalling concern about the problems gripping americans." what do you think? guest: ok. there is going to be a lot of, as michael said, wednesday-

morning quarterbacking. there was a lot of finger- pointing and a lot of blame in democratic circles about whose fault this was pure the bottom line is it is clear, and has been clear for some time, that voters do not see washington as addressing their key problems. the caller had it exactly right. the white house and congress tried to pick it to this issue of mean streets vs. wall street, but they have not been able to get there. the financial regulation bill that michael talked about, we are also hearing the president talking about putting a tax on some of these wall street banks, and whether or not that is going to be successful. again, this idea of making sure that the people who are making money in this economy, especially those people who did get bailout money, who did get support from washington, are paying their fair share. but as we have said throughout the show, the problem is we are

talking about this a year out rather than in february of last year. instead, we have spent 2009 talking about climate and energy reform, talking about health care reform. there was a stimulus bill, certainly one of the first things the president did, but that is about it when it comes to jobs. but one of the question democrats are asking now is how come we did not reverse these things? how come we did not talk about financial regulation reform early and then move on to health care, then to climate change? the problem now is you have so many democrats in congress who are very nervous, watching the results of massachusetts, seeing polls in their own districts, trying to raise money to run their campaigns, going back home and talking to constituents. they hear the same anger, and they want congress to pivot and focus, and it becomes difficult to do if they still have health care on the table and they still

have to get through a general a preparation process, and the day in and day out duties of congress. that is going to be what the president and congress have to focus on 100% if they are going to get these kinds of voters and independents who voted against democrats now in three straight campaigns back on board. host: we have chris van hollen on the line now, the democratic congressman from maryland, the democratic campaign committee chairman. the politico airline says -- to the political headline says, van hollen says blame bush." what do you say? guest: that is not a direct quote, but it is not just a question about how people are feeling about the economy but a question about what the different candidates and different parties are planning to do about it. as the callers and your guests

there have said, there is a lot of anxiety about the state of the economy, and i think that is a major factor in massachusetts, the race. but it is important to do two things. number one, remind people that a year ago the economy was in total freefall. a year ago this month, 750,000 american jobs were lost, the stock market was in the tank, and gdp was plummeting. so things have stabilized. we have not turned the corner. the worst thing to do would be to turn back the clock to the same policies that got us into this economic ditch to begin with. so that is the choice that voters ultimately will face. i could not agree more with the comments made about focusing on job creation. the house of representatives did pass a bill last month to accelerate job creation. it did not pass the senate yet. i am confident it will be the focus of the president's state of the union address, as will be

the question of making sure that we invest on main street and not continue to see these banks benefit. it is time for the banks to pay back main street. host: then we need to ask, we are hearing a lot about the victory in massachusetts will spawn a lot of new fund raising, a lot of new aggression on the republicans' part to take on democrats. are you worried? guest: well, you always have to be competitive in getting the message out. there is always the concern that special interest groups will dump a lot of money into races, and voters need to be very wary about where this funding is coming from. because often is the case that you have special interests behind it. it was recently discovered that a whole ton of the money being spent against health care reform came from health insurance industries, which obviously

benefit from the status quo, with the current system is important that voters understand the motivation behind the money that is being spent in these races. we are doing everything we can at the democratic campaign committee to make sure that they have the resources to compete and get their messages out so that they are not victims of campaigns of distortion. host: one last question for you -- with so much talk this morning about independents, how will you appeal to those folks moving forward? guest: that is a key issue. we saw in new york a special election last summer, democratic candidate bill owens won in a congressional district that had not been held by republicans in the civil war. -- that had not been held by republicans since the civil war. he won on the economy, by jobs,

making sure that we put ourselves on a predictable path to reducing the deficit, and to, again, ask voters to make a simple choice. do you really want to turn back the clock to the policies that got us over our head in debt and got us into the position where the economy was plummeting down words? i think there is a way to reach the independent vote. we need to focus again on jobs, fiscal accountability, and other measures, but i do not think the independents want to go back to the policies that got us into this mess to begin with. new york 23, a special election, has gotten people talking about the new jersey races and the virginia races and now massachusetts. but in the middle of the town hall meeting over health care this past summer, bill owens won, a democrat in a republican- leaning district, in a place that had not gone democrats

since the civil war. we have a responsibility to put forward a platform that helps finally turned the corner on the economy, which is now stabilized, put people back to work, and hold wall street accountable. .

do the tax cut to expire or are they left in place? host: amy walter, anything about the health care issue, what you might be hearing from democrats in the house and senate? >> certainly, it will be something that we hear a lot about. even before the election in massachusetts. when you run washington, it becomes difficult to talk about a choice. voters went against republicans in 2006. they were running the show. voters were fed up with what they saw in washington and voted in democrats. there is also a strong check and

balance thing going on. that is where scott brown benefit. voters in massachusetts say they were not voting against the president. this was not someone who was going to suddenly tip the balance of power. it has an impact on cloture vote, but in general, it will be one vote in any sea -- in a sea of democrats. i think bill owens ran a smart campaign. from the beginning, he defined himself. i talked about martha coakley not doing this. he also campaigned as a regular guy. i am concerned about the economy, keeping the focus away

from washington, back on to what he, as an individual, wanted to do. he ran as an independent, even though he is someone democrat. the other thing congressman van hollen has going for them is they have a tremendous money advantage. when you look at how much money was raised in 2009, the dcc has a tremendous cash on hand advantage over the republicans. but the big issue is the outside money coming in. it is a race like this going to energize those groups? are we going to see the supreme court decision soon? we expect to see one soon that could change the way campaign finance laws are enforced so that even more outside money could make its way in.

that would have a huge impact on all the candidates and would mitigate a lot of the current democratic advantages they have in terms of fund-raising. host: barbara, thank you for waiting. on the democrat line. caller: i am devastated. i agree, martha coakley did not run a good campaign. i think democrats took their eye off the ball too soon, too much. i heard one month ago she had a 30% lead. the problem is, people do not know what is in this health care bill. i am sure that is why brown was elected. people do not know the good

parts of this bill. they know all the lies. guest: this is a good question, and i wonder what will happen to the people who are so concerned with health care? do they want a different bill? now that they have elected scott brown, what does he want to do to health care? basically, he wants more of the republican plan. in massachusetts, there is a state-wide plan that was put forth by governor mitt romney of the time. i think there will be a look at replicating that war. -- that more. host: exeter, new hampshire. jim on the republican line.

caller: hats off to all the independent voters in massachusetts. it is kind of like a vampire, putting a stake through the heart of the progressive movement. health care is a problem but the economy is a bigger problem. people need jobs. i wish you would have had someone from "the boston herald close " as well because -- herald" as well because they cover more republican stuff. obama, watche out. host: next phone call. caller: i think we need to change the news media. u-turn on the tv -- you have to get up early -- you turn on the

tv. you have to get up early to watch real tv. we are being blinded by these politicians. when the republicans came in power here, the first thing they did was raise taxes. i want to speak about the stimulus bill and all the blame on president bush. president bush did not create this mess. the democrat-controlled congress created it. jeffers decided he was going to be his true self, remember? let's stop whining to the people. we are finally 08, i think. -- stop lying to the people.

we are finally awake, i think. guest: when i started covering the campaign, the news business was very independent, from an editorial-side. in this case, they endorsed martha coakley, and she lost. if you look back at our coverage, readers can read a lot of interesting things. i think the coverage was really good and fair. you can find interesting profiles about scott brown. i am sure a lot of people are waking up wondering who scott brown is. a colleague of mine wrote a profile many weeks ago where he laid out to scott brown is. you get a sense of why people

tapped into his campaign. host: you were wondering about what this would do to help care. chris van hollen also said -- amy walter, we were talking about scott brown and what he was able to tap into. another other scott browns out there? >> i think every republican is calling themselves scott brown now. just about everyone was sending a press release that said i helped him come on believe in his message.

-- i helped him, finally the in his message. we could see this play out even in republican primaries. in the florida, charlie crist is running as the establishment. it seemed like a good idea of a couple of years ago. he is now getting a serious challenge from rubio. he came from the legislator, came from the house, but he has not been able to tap into that frustration about the establishment. here the republican establishment is considered to not been listening to the voters. that is one race, in particular, the news media will be spending a lot of time to

assess aning. host: we often see this story of mr. brown goes to washington. guest: the real question is, now that they have arrived, what can they accomplish? what we hear from voters time and again it is what can they do? how will you work together to get these things done, on drums, the economy, health care, -- jobs, the economy, health care, global warming? host: next phone call. caller: i could not believe with senator kennedy being sick, the democrat party did not look forward and see the position they were in. this is a senator who

championed a lot of wonderful things for the people. i feel as if republicans got on top of this right away. they did a great job getting the word out. they have a nice looking guy, he talks well. that is the way the health care bill is right now. this democratic party could have done a wonderful thing for the country. even the president had not been up front delivering a good mission -- message to the people. host: amy walter? guest: all good points. fundamentally, this will be the

issue for the 2010 campaign. democrats need to tell folks what they are doing and how they are helping regular folks on around the country it is funny, i listened to that caller and i felt like i was in 2008. this is what republicans were saying about their own party. we did not get the right candidate, they are energized. the law of unintended consequences began back in 2004 when legislators in massachusetts worried that when john kerry -- if john kerry were elected, that run it would appoint someone to fill his seat -- mitt romney would appoint someone to fill his seat. of course, everyone thought in democrat would fill the seat. obviously, that did not happen.

then you sell top flight -- saw top-flight democrats not fighting very hard. they had not been in a very difficult political environment before. martha coakley had been elected statewide before, but this was something different. there was definitely a sense that things were taken for granted frankly, when you saw the polls early on, there was no reason to believe this was going to be other than a typical election. at the federal level, it has not happened in so long. most people assumed it would not happen again. host: here is an e-mail --

guest: obviously, a lot of people thought it did matter who won. it is a combination of things. had the economic environment been better, coakley probably would have one. she did not find a good campaign. brown ran a good campaign. he tapped into a lot of the anger. let me go back to ted kennedy. as a reporter to the "boston globe" i have covered him for years. there is this aspect that he pushed for health care for some many years. one thing i have talked about with my colleagues is the

question, if kennedy was not on his deathbed, would he have been more active on pieces of legislation? that is, working more closely with republicans. he would have worked hard to make sure that they never got to this point, where republicans are only willing to oppose. as we look back, we can consider that important. host: 1 more e-mail -- -- one more e-mail -- here is the lead editorial in "u.s. a today" -- u.s. say

today -- usa today" -- next phone call. caller: we are scared to death we are going to lose our jobs. the government is going crazy. we do not understand what they're doing. the latest having is the census. i know this is often subject, but they do not have the legal right to ask these questions other than how many people live here? one of my co-workers was threatened by one of the census workers, saying it was against the law not to answer the questions. guest: i am not aware of the specific question he is asking. host: amy walter?

guest: i think we have an issue of two communities. some feel like this is an intrusion of the government. others who are either new immigrants, new to the country, are weary -- this is a new process for them. there is concern about the type of information they are giving up to the government. that is always an issue that census workers have to take into account. it is true that the census is an interesting issue. not as much as a voting issue, for those of you thinking about the next election, but in terms of congress, they are looking at reapportioned ing.

we will be redrawn every district in the country. some states are going to pick up seats, some are going to lose seats. that means a lot of shake-up potentially in the next the elections. after 1994, we had a pretty quiet election in terms of turnover in the house and senate until we got to the 2006 election when we had major changes. 14 seats in the senate, 56 in the house. we could see big losses for the democrats. then into 2012, we could have that a major shift in terms of the makeup in numbers. host: on the telephone now is a

congressman eric cantor of virginia, the minority whip in the house. what are your expectations now from the democratic side of legislation? guest: first of all, i think the unthinkable has happened. scott brown's election, this is the underpinning of the democratic agenda here in washington being shaken. the jury is still out as to where we are going to go with health care. none of us are accepting the status quo. all of us want to do something to bring down health-care costs. i am hopeful the message from the election will be heeded. the message to me was the people of massachusetts, just like virginia and new jersey, are tired of washington not listening. we need to have common sense health care reform that brings down cost.

no one, i think, is interested in incurving 8 trillion in additional costs without producing some savings -- a trillion in additional costs without producing some savings. host: there is a passage in " roll call" from a democratic aide saying -- they go on to say scott brown did not run as a republican. the republican brand is still in the toilet, according to him. guest: they can play the blame game all they want. for goodness sakes, this is massachusetts. obviously, there were many democrats and independents

willing to vote republican because they are fed up with the agenda in washington that does not reflect the mainstream center-like sentiments of this country. scott brown postelection reflects the desire of the people in america -- scott brown's election reflects the desire of the people in america for change. host: what about the agenda? this is an election year. there are a lot of people who believe there are significant pieces of legislation that need to be done. guest: first of all, i think the american people expect congress to conduct themselves in a way to inform the american people. the shenanigans in health care around the senate were appalling. backroom deals, trading millions

of dollars between senators, without the public knowing what was going on. we have seen the same type of behavior in the house all year. hopefully, what we will see, going forward, is a much more transparent process and one that is more mindful that we cannot spend the money we do not have. we need to take away the environment of uncertainty, preventing job creators from jumping back into became and getting people back to work. host: what do you see this doing for republican money coming in? guest: we have seen an overwhelming increase in interest on both sides. the republican house conference has been all about solutions

from the beginning of last year. when we approached in the stimulus debate -- i personally handed to president obama our stimulus plan that was heavy on job creation. we believe we could have created twice as many jobs with half the cost. it was the same thing last year. we tried to present a budget that was the angled toward reducing this runaway spending. the same thing on health care. we believe we should reform the system, but in a way that makes sense and will not bankrupt the country. host: thank you for your time. michael kranish? guest: i think the question is whether or not scott brown will be in lockstep with the republican party or if he will remain very independent.

not just to say that he is against the democrats. in that way, he could move things along in a little bit. so will he be put it back into the woodwork, or will he be focused on? guest: to echo his point, he brings up an interesting question. it is scott brown going to be a traditional new england republican, in the mold of an olympia snowe, susan collins? right now he has the chance to be the more conservative republican. is he going to push against leadership or is he going to try to be part of that leadership? it will be an interesting debate. guest: he supports roe v. wade,

so we are going to see how that plays out, in terms of things where he differs from the party. caller: i was listening to all of these things about scott brown. i do not think it matters very much the thing about the nelson, mary landrieu making these deals -- good for them. they are helping their states. that is why they were elected. people are calling it the louisiana purchase, the husky this-and-that. i see this in massachusetts sort of as one of obama won the election. coakley was lackluster.

brown looked pretty good. i am glad he won because it spreads things out. host: amy walter, connect massachusetts to the rest of the country. guest: i like what the caller said, this assumption that mary landrieu for ben nelson would get banked for helping their constituents. actually, the opposite has happened. nelson is having trouble, even among his own constituents. this is the idea that brown ran on, that this is the people's seat. democrats campaigned on this idea in 2004, 2006. it is not really changing, and

that is the frustration. we cannot pretend that this is just bush's fault. meet them where they are, define yourself on it, and run a campaign. guest: i think the question is whether or not we want to go back and recalibrate on this. also, can scott brown played a role in it? host: thank you to both of our guest this morning. we will take a short break and then we will speak with bill adair. we will talk about president obama's first year in office, marked today. >> president obama signed a directive today aimed at cracking down on tax cheat to

get federal contracts. then after meeting with advisers, he delivers remarks on a national mentor month. an update on relief efforts in haiti from robert gates speaking from india. he says he is sending additional ships to help with the recovery effort. meanwhile, another strong earthquake has hit haiti, shaking buildings in sending people running in the streets. the 6.1 magnitude earthquake hit just after 6:00 p.m. today northwest of the capital. congress focuses on the intelligence system today following the christmas day terror attack. fbi director robert muller, janet napolitano, and other security officials will testify before a homeland security committee on why the suspect was

allowed to board an airplane with a bomb. meanwhile, britain's government is spending direct flights between the u.k. and yemen over security concerns following the attack. prime minister brown, in a statement earlier, confirmed the halting of services. flights will only be resume once the yemeni government enhances security. those are some of the latest headlines. host: our guest is bill adair, at the turn of -- editor of politifact. you have made a table on promises made by obama. promises kept, 91. compromises, 33.

promises broken, 14. first question. how do you track these promises? >> we started -- guest: we started by defining what a promise would be. something where he given t perspective action. something that we decided was measurable. we found there were more than 500 promises that he made, which is a stunning number. promises like reducing troops in iraq to narrow promises, like the ones he made to parents of children with autism. so what we have done is we have tracked them. we have spent hours and hours

searching the internet, interview and advocacy groups to see how they have done. we tried to be as objective as possible in the rating them. a promise kept is something where he has met or exceeded what he said he would do. we tried to recognize he is only one year into a four-year term and still has three years to fulfill many of these promises. that is why the number of promises broken is only 13, he only has three years in office. about 90 promises are rated stalled. we expect some of those promises could go broke in, but there is opportunity for progress. interestingly, on health care,

35 individual promises he made in the campaign are affected by the health care bill. if they manage to pass the senate version in the house, or change their strategy and pass it, it could go to promises kept. it could also go to promises broken. host: we will go to the phone calls. we are talking about the president's first year in office. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. who funds you? guest: we are funded by the largest independent newspaper in florida. we have two features on our site, the obameter and the t

ruthmeter. we started fact checking claims that obama made in the campaigns in 2007. we did that through the primary, over the course of the campaign checked 750 claims and rated them on our truthometer. the idea here is a need for a referee, someone who is going to, in an objective way, sort out the truth for people, and hold elected officials accountable. we are nonpartisan. it is just journalism. host: promises kept --

tell us more. guest: promises kept involve, in many cases, things that he was able to do without the consent of congress. things that he could do through executive power. the latter two you mentioned, he did not need the approval of congress. he was able to give a speech in an islamic forum. he spoke in turkey and egypt. he fulfilled many promises about putting emphasis within the executive branch on particular things. the first two you mentioned were ones where he needed the content of congress, to pass schip, and i believe that was the first bill he signed a

couple days after he took office. the same thing for the credit card bill of rights. those two represents something of an exception in that it also included bipartisan support. of course, when he got to the stimulus, there was much less republican support. host: promises broken, according to bill adair -- tell us more about those. guest: a couple of those deal

with the issue of transparency. he said a lot of things like he would open up health-care negotiations to c-span cameras. that sounded good on the campaign trail, but what has happened is, he has been forced to realize that is not how washington has traditionally worked. difficult negotiations have always taken place behind closed doors. that is how things are done. as a result of that, he has been forced to break that promise. transparency is difficult. he did take some steps, though. he has spoken to many government groups, and they are happy that he is making more progress compared to president bush.

transparency has been a difficult area. host: first phone call. lucy from kansas city. caller: president obama promised -- he ran on the fact that he was going to have transparency in the government, like you just mentioned. we were going to see everything before it was passed. bills would be smaller and more clear. also, that he would create jobs and get the economy going. several of my family members have lost jobs. they are still looking. my brother runs a small business, but he will be hit with the kinds of taxes, regulations. that is not transparency.

that is not different government. this is nothing new. all that is it is socialism. host: you make an interesting point -- host: bill adair? guest: you make an important poininteresting point about transparency. it is not as if these things are not published. they are all on the library of congress website. what obama had promised to do, though, was to have a five-day waiting period before they sign any bills. host: and hertz, massachusetts -- amherst, massachusetts. jeff, are you there?

i think we lost him. pat in stockton, california. caller: i just want to say -- about obama's decision to keep ben bernanke in office. i thought it was a mistake. he is falling in line with the bush administration. hank paulson and the bush said we are in trouble, we need the t.a.r.p. fund. no questions asked. then he keeps tim geithner in office who was the ceo of goldman sachs. i think that could be part of his downfall. guest: that is a bit beyond our per view. we are in the fact-checking business.

host: the first caller mentioned transparency. you touched on the area of promises stalled . let us go through some of those -- guest: we looked for action on that but we could not find any. we are talking about a total of 503 promises. the administration made some calculations that it could only pursue so many things at one time. earlier we talked about some of the promises obama made about gay rights. those are stalled by a political

calculation, but by the white house, that they were not going to pursue that in the first year. with 500 promises, you have to figure out which ones you will tackle first. host: they also promised -- what is the difference between a stalled promise and a broken promise? guest: we write something "stalled" up until the point where there cannot be any more action. then we make a determination based on our research, is there the possibility there could be further action? if so, we will keep it stalled. the obameter does move in both directions, though.

we have taken things in and out of different categories. it goes back to something that candida obama's said. i want you to hold me accountable, so we said we would. -- candidate obama said. we started this one years ag ag. obviously, we could not begin this until we knew what the promises were. we spend quite a bit of time going through transcripts, speeches, and documented all the promises he made. host: did you do any of this work under the last president in his final year? guest: we get asked that question a lot. i wish that we had. i think we have created a

wonderful resource that going forward, will set the standard for how we hold president accountable. we did not exist until 2007. i think what we have is a new form of journalism that harnesses the power of the web, both as a research tool for our reporters -- never before have we been able to get information on specific things like this -- but also for the public to be able to come and see how he is doing on these various promises. host: wallace from georgia. democratic line. caller: i was listening to this lady who said that obama promised jobs. you cannot just go out there and

make people give you a job. he cannot do that. it is as if he can just make people hire you. guest: that is an important point. in fact, one of the things we have fact check is his claims about his economic -- fact- checked is his claims about his economic stimulus. stimulating the economy and creating jobs. what he has said repeatedly, the number of jobs that have been created or saved by the economic stimulus bill. we have been skeptical of that because of the word "saved." that is a difficult thing to

measure, unless you go to a school district, for example, and say because they got this funding, they were able to avoid layoffs. unless you have that sort of specificity, the numbers they are using our fuzzy. host: next phone call. san diego. go ahead. my fault, go ahead. caller: i wanted to tell you i used to be a republican but now i am independent. host: why did you change? caller: it had to do with the bush administration changing the law in order to do what they wanted to do. i believe the rule of law is the most important thing we have in the democracy. i wanted to talk about president obama. i think, generally speaking, he

is doing a pretty good job. mostly because i lost a lot of money in the stock market. i know that we were headed not merely for a depression, but for a worldwide collapse. i think because of what they did, both at the end of the bush administration, and president obama, they basically stopped the world from falling apart. so it feels like nothing happened, but people have forgotten where we were. the fact that people are asking for a job, the fact that we stay at 10% unemployment, as compared to where we would have gone -- those are huge numbers. i want people to begin calling their senators and congress people and say, get to work for us, and not completely blame it on president obama.

guest: it is an interesting question -- is difficult to decipher, when the economy behaves, how much is attributable to the government. it is a tricky thing for us in the fact-checking the business because so many of the claims on both sides have to do with the impact of the economic stimulus, impact of t.a.r.p. and that gets into a difficult area for us. host: bill adair talking about the president's first year in office. west chester, pennsylvania. tracy, you are on the republican line. caller: thank you for doing this, for holding our elected officials -- at least the president -- accountable. that is certainly what the american people are looking for.

it makes it easier for the average person to check and see what is going on with the internet. how much do you think your website and websites like this are feeling movement, like the tea party movement? guest: that is an interesting question. i do not know if it is fueling it. we see ourselves as a referee. when someone says something that is untrue, we want to tell you about it. if someone says something provocative, but want to show you if it is true or not. i guess any news site could be fueling politics in any way. our goal is to do something different. we want to help you make sense of politics. we do that as objectively as we can by looking at claims on both

sides and rating them on our truthometer. host: is that not what the news media was supposed to be doing the whole time? guest: i think we got scared. i think what happened in the late 1990's, the media got afraid to say that something was false for fear of saying that we were bias. so we had a tendency to pass along the falls heads without noting they were false. i think any political reporter could say that dathey reported things that were not entirely true. we have this tremendously new opportunity the web to tell

people what is going on. it was time. both sides get mad at us, both sides love us. it depends on the day. host: politifact.com. bill from cleveland. democratic line. caller: i have a question for you. president obama ran on a platform of hope and change and a fresh perspective from washington. in your opinion, do you think promises kept are as important as a feeling of hope? i feel as if he has not kept that feeling of hope alive. guest: that is interesting question and i think that goes a bit beyond what we do. we addressed it to some extent in an item that we published yesterday. we had initially not included

obama's promise to work in a more bipartisan way. we felt like that was not asked measurable -- as measurable. his specific promise was that he would turn the of the page on partisan in the washington. so we looked at that and at his votes. although there was some bipartisan votes -- as i mentioned on schip, the credit- card bill of rights -- but when you look at the real big things, it has been as partisan as ever. we have raided that promise "stalled." i will leave it up to the pundits to decide why that is,

but undoubtedly, as you say, the president has not delivered on his promise to bring the parties together. host: next phone call on the independent line. caller: you are a bit faster on the telephone than you are on the tv. i wanted to mention the budget, the deficit. you hear republicans talking about what ronald reagan did for the country. when he came into office, he tripled the national debt, too. it took bill clinton eight years, fighting with the republican congress and senate to balance the budget and have a budget surplus. when george bush took over, he

gave all that money away to his oil bodies, insurance bodies, and randy -- buddies, insurance buddies, and ran the deficit up again. guest: we looked at that. there was a back and forth between david axelrod and karl rove. we looked at a claim by axelrod that was essentially what you said. he gave numbers on what the bush administration inherited in terms of the surplus, projected surplus, and what it left. we gave him a mostly true on that. i think he was off on one number that he used. i think it is important to give a perspective of history on all

of these things. that is what we try to do with our truthometer. a lot of times elected officials will make claims about how things work, so we look at that, too. host: amanda on the republican line. caller: republican and independents should not stop with massachusetts. there is a lot of work to be done. i hope the tea party folks do not allow themselves to be coopted by the republicans. they need to remain independent. bill adair, i would like you to bring the truthometer on the scott brown campaign. he never mentioned he was republican. could you tell us, honestly,

fairly, if his campaign ever mentioned he was a republican? guest: that is a great question. i had that same spot. i was watching msnbc this morning, and someone said the same thing. one of the things we try to do is try to look at some of these state races. we recently launched politifactexas. we are going to try to do that with some other states. the idea is to take the truth meter to the state level and do more fact-checking for candidates like martha coakley, scott brown. it is my belief every elected official should have to face this. as well as pundits. we also check talk-show hosts like keep all our men, glenn beck, rush limbaugh.

-- keith olbermann, glenn beck, rush limbaugh. host: some more promises not get rated -- caller: only after it it -- guest: only after a natural disaster can we look at some of those. i think we have to wait until there is an opportunity for the president to act, in that case. host: here are the top 10 promises as we take the last call from houston, texas. pam on the democrat line. guestcaller: i was interested iw you rate president obama's promised to curtail free trade

-- promise to curtail free trade, address the problem we are having. i have been in business for 30 years. i think the crux of our financial problems have to do with those two issues. guest: great question. of the 503 promises -- there are a few on trade -- but you can go on our website anc what we have done on -- and see what we have done on that issue. host: anything more about the future of politifact? guest: we believe there is a lot of desire and need for us to do this. our friends in texas have been doing this for a week and have been doing some great work looking at the governor's race between k bailey hutchison and the incumbent rick perry. we would like to do that in other states.

as i said, i think every elected official in the country should face the truthometer. host: we will continue to take your phone calls for the next half hour on the president's first year. a lot in the newspaper is focusing on the first year in office, including the "wall street journal" editorial -- . .

host: the health-care package without the public option of liberals dreams is one example of obama as a pragmatist. the war on terror is another as obama has infuriated liberals by opposing torture prosecution's, resuming the use of military tribunals and asserting the state secrets privilege. even where the property even with the preferences trend liberals, with don't ask don't tell, or opposing the employee free choice act -- he finishes by writing having covered the inauspicious start of bill clinton's prentiss, the first term president corp. predictors,

this administration's performance has been far from perfect. but in the panic of the moment, the ezpass criticism is not necessarily correct and character -- the easy criticism is not necessarily correct how about the president's first year? what is your take? caller: i think the president has done a great job. host: great, choir? caller: everywhere. trying to do health care that cannot be outsourced, and people are saying where is our bailout? well, he was trying to give us health care. we forget that he was the most inexperienced president that was it ever came into office, and everybody was calling him an experience. now that he has been in office a few months, we think he is a god now. he is supposed to snap his fingers and make everything all

right. everything takes time. i think we have amnesia in america. host: of the financial times has a bit of a different take. they have a column titled of " reform agenda." "after 12 months, none of barack obama's three main legislative goals has been accomplished. they talk about health care, cap and trade legislation, and financial regulations. jerry is calling now from missouri, republican line. caller: good morning. i cannot quite understand why everybody is scared to come on and say what it really is. host: what is it? caller: at absolute out and out lies that he made, that he just absolutely cannot -- there was no way in the world that he could have done anything which he said -- well, some things, but most of it was just idle promises which he knew were lies

when he said then. i am really, really disgusted about the fact that we cannot get honest, and honest congress. now they have to go behind closed doors and do everything that is -- so that nobody else knows exactly what is going on in this country, and i tell you what, i think that we need to make a change bbefore it is over with, and i think impeachment should be started against the man. host: winston-salem north carolina. rachel, on the independent line. caller: i want to say that when you hear what the president has said and tried to do, he has kept every promise that he made. i am disappointed that you are lying on the president'. our president has not weakened in anything that he said, that we are to work together.

he was hoping that the republicans will also sit at the table and bring their experiences and ideas. first of all, you have got to tell the truth. you have got to stop trying to have rich people acting like they are kings and then the rest of the people are slaves. this is what our president is telling you to stop, that you cannot continue to do that. the constitution was written for a purpose. we have a level for everybody to be able to live and have some comfort. host: moving from rachel to bobby on the independent line, new iberia, louisiana. the president's first year in office -- what is your take, bobby? caller: i think it is a terrible situation. he should have restore the rule of law and gotten the country back on its feet legally. c-span, i would like to challenge you, the gentleman from politifact you can do the

nation a great service with all of these authors writing all these books. with the truthometer, your title to an opinion, but you're not entitled to two truths. it would be vastly improved if you would run these books and people through politifact on your program. host: interesting idea, caller. what's written about the president's first year in office today, including the "philadelphia inquirer," there have line, "taking stock of the president's first year." "we had to" is the title of one section of this piece. "obama pushed through the $787 billion stimulus package as well as bailouts to financial firms and the auto industry, which many economists argue have

helped stabilize the economy. yet on upon the remains at about 10% nationwide and in americans report little evidence of improvement in their situation." "these were not the things we want to do, they were the things we had to do," said david axelrod, the president's chief adviser. "i think history will look back on those as a series of fatal decisions in terms of saving country from a deeper disaster. next call, good morning. caller: i could not agree with the last two callers more wholeheartedly. this country has to come back to a civil discourse, and people have got to quit -- i mean, some of the things border on treason. i mean, they really are treasonous statements. rush limbaugh and that crazy pat robertson and that minute to

infringe on fox news. especially that sean hannity and glenn beck. these people are making a fortune off of people who buy into their rhetoric. they want to be titillated, i guess, or be made fearful. it is almost like watching a horror flick. i think they get off on it. the people who want to bitch and moan the most. >host: washington, charles, democratic line. caller: good morning. i am sure glad to get through to you. i have been trying for months. i watch you everyone. host: thanks. what is your assessment of the president's first year? caller: i have a different assessment because i think that the republicans are still running the show. host: what do you mean? caller: they started the day after he was elected on fox news

and started downtroddening him. they are not doing anything. that is why fact check comes up with half truths and all this kind of stuff pretty reason he has not been doing anything is because they will not let him. they are still controlling it. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" goes on to say that obama has been unable to win troops support from thnato allies, and the world is more united against iran's nuclear ambitions. axelrod said. "is done debatable that america's standing is stronger today. but the administration's but republican opponents have a different perspective. house minority leader john boehner said last month "it has been a long year for the american people. we have seen american families and small businesses struggling all year in a very difficult economy, and all that they have

gone from the democrats here in washington was more spending, more debt, piled on the backs of our kids and grandkids." john boehner there. massachusetts, elva, good morning. caller: good morning. you need to create jobs in the private sector, not the government. that is all they have been concentrating on is government jobs and health care. we need health care reform, but not government-run health care. that is not going to help anybody. the government jobs are going to run out when the stimulus runs out, and we are going to be right back where we started. in the private sector jobs, and that is nothing that the government can do -- you need private sector jobs, and that is nothing that the government can do we need small business, not government-controlled jobs. without the private sector, you are not going to have

improvement in this country. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" writes, the president's next big chance to shift the political climate comes next wednesday with the state of the union. last week he used muscular populist rhetoric in proposing a new tax on big financial institutions to recover bailout money. slow starts, it seems, are less the exception than the rule for new presidents. ronald reagan had initial approval ratings at obama's level and a bit further into the 40's as the recession deepened in 1982. ronald reagan vowed to stay the course. some republican lawmakers lost in that year's midterm, but the economy rebounded and in 1984 he was reelected in a historic landslide. democrat bill clinton was dismissed as a likely one-term chief executive. as 1993 ended, republicans took over congress the next year and

clinton had to proclaim his own relevance on national tv. his poll numbers recovered, and he, too, was reelected pickup florida, keith, thank you for waiting. caller: it is not a historic day because it is the republicans. other than that, i have heard historic every day on the news. it is amazing. now i want to get to bipartisanship. a suggestion for c-span -- i wish you guys would go more toward an issue-based in favor of or against oinstead of the three political views. maybe if people were more subtle and not as vulgar, you could put a two-minute clocked up there so that people could get their expressions in in two minutes instead of people asking to give them extra time and stuff. real quick, i see this as against the establishment, the media, and politicians in this country need to get back with

the people. other than transparency in the special interest groups, that is the only promises i want president obama to keep right now. he had a lot of good ideas, but right now the reality is we need jobs and security in this country. there are people shooting military soldiers in this country and abroad, airports every day with security lapses. this country needs to get together, and with reality. we are not a superpower no more. we have to borrow money from china and this president has to go around and apologize for the last president. host: grosse pointe, michigan, donald, on the democrats' line. caller: yes, i do not think the president is doing a bad job. i think he is doing the best he possibly can with the hand he has been dealt. that being said, one of the problems we are having is that the news media -- cnn, fox,

msnbc, and even sometimes c- span -- a lot of information comes across the airways and nobody explains it. obama says he will raise taxes. that may be true, but no one explains that he is planning on raising taxes on only people making $250,000 or above. i think that c-span does the american people and in justice and the rest of the news media, too, by not being more specific. and not let certain things hang out there. "he is going to raise taxes." let's get more specific. the news media is becoming in some ways the worst enemy of the american public because you are not giving us the truth we deserve. host: thank you, donald. baltimore, what you think about

the president's first year? caller: i am going to touch on what a couple of the last callers said. i think he had great ideas, but in the climate he got in office it just was not right. republicans -- i mean, i really thought republicans would work with democrats, but they have not. and they will moderate this health-care thing, they are now working with him at all -- and they will not. this health-care thing, they are not working with him at all. they will go ahead and get a vote on that. his next priority is financial regulation. you watch the show. republicans live on when we tried to do financial reform. most of the reforms are common sense reforms, regular everyday americans at work, it is common sense stuff.

you wait and see how these republicans are going to say no to everything. host: darren, we appreciate your comments this morning. president's obama first year -- the approval ratings one year ago, 67%. a year ago, today, 50%. that is a gallup poll -- that is a u.s. a today gallup poll. the down jones -- the dow jones industrial average and generate 20, 2009. 7949. yesterday, 10,725. americans 16 and older, out of 13 americans, unemployed -- out of 13 million americans, unemployed as of a year ago. 7.7% now. as far as debt, $10.60 trillion as of the year-ago period of $0.30 trillion as of january 14,

this year. the president's first year in office, james, what grade would you give him? caller: first of all, good morning, c-span3 host: good morning. caller: i would have to give him an a. this guy has taken a job at a time of enormous challenges. he reminds me of a texan, almost. i was born in kansas, raised in texas. i like this fellow. host: where has he been most effective? sick of talking about leadership, the man's sincerity -- caller: talking about leadership, the man's sincerely, you have to talk about respect. i will follow this guy, and give him the time that he needs. i have faith in him, new faith in american now. i actually sort of love my

country again. i love my first lady, michelle obama. host: democrats line from herndon, virginia. what do you think about the president's first year? caller: i think he has done a pretty good job with all the things that he has had to contend with. as far as what i see, and i go back to the gentleman who said he should be impeached or whatever -- that kind of talk is really out there because the man is doing what he can with what he was given. if people truly cared about this country, they would work for making it better, not saying no to everything this man ever says. if the sky is blue and he says is blue, the republicans come back and say it is green. you can see it. you can see it and you do not understand why they are doing it. but then you do understand why

they are doing it because they want to see him fail. if that means that they can get their opinions or their things going, then he will fail. i just want to say one other thing. i think this massachusetts election is a wake-up call. it should be a wake-up call to both republicans and democrats. host: from the associated press this morning, the obama administration's choice to lead the tsa is withdrawn his nomination because it has become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. obama tapped barrels othererrol. jindal is worried that he would allow tsa employees to join a labor union.

there are holding a hearing on security on the december 22 5 incident. andrew, on the line from florida, independent. hello there. caller: how are you doing this morning? i think he is doing a pretty good job, myself, considering his opposition. this opposition has occurred, it seems like -- i do not know if it is race-based, or if they just hate democrats that much. we allow people to lie and nobody is standing up and saying, hey, these are lies. they keep on lying, and i do not know if republicans are race- based or not. they might just hate poor people. i do not know what this thing is pretty well, i do know, because i know -- i do not know what

this thing is. well, i do know. i feel bad for our country right now here it is feels like it is going backwards instead of forward. host: to the republican line, tampa, florida. kirk, what do you think? caller: i was hopeful when he got in with a democratic controlled congress that he would get a lot more done. but i think the proof is the fact that the entire congress, republican/democrat, on both sides, have completely lost touch with the average person because they are not getting anything really done. host: thanks for calling. more of the numbers from the 83 34,400 -- that is the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan -- from the ap. 34,400 -- that is the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan. military deaths, 34,000 -- 319

is the u.s. military deaths in afghanistan from january 2009 to january 15, 2010. 152 is the number of military deaths in iraq from january 2009 to january 15 of this year. peter, on the democrats' line. how do you pronounce the name of your town? caller: i am from hawaii. i want to say that it is refreshing to finally have some intelligence in the oval office. i think that despite citizens of lesser quality, america is living up to its creed. when i hear john boehner talking about the rising deficit at every turn, where was he when two wars were fought without being paid for? i would also point out that tarp was signed under the bush regime with republican support.

so i think the truth is coming, and that america will finally be able to live up to its creed and the citizens will not be shed by the wayside. i am very proud that we have some intelligence in our white house for the first time in a long time. host: we move on to lakeside, wisconsin. the president's first year in office. debbie, an independent caller. hello. what is the grade? caller: i would give him an f. number one, when you had the guy from politico on earlier, i wonder how much of obama's lack of transparency is causing his not able to actually gather some decent facts and fat check what is actually going on. i would also like -- and fact check what is going on. i would also like to say that i

think obama's policies are actually creating more people to become dependent on the government, which is very bad for the united states. we are trying to get away from that, and he is trying to back into obama money, free money, coming out of obama's stash. people just do not understand that you actually have to go out and get a job, you need to work your way up the ladder, and that is what the united states is about. we need to be independent. we should not be taking so much money from our government. the less we take from our government, the less we have to pay and the more we can keep in our pockets. host: thanks, debbie. there have been 12 formal news conferences by the president. he has visited 21 foreign countries, 29 states. he made 10 visits to camp david.

he has taken two vacations. that according to the associated press. julie joins us on the republican line. caller: i am not happy with anything the president has done, and i feel like he has been attacking our country with the same policies that he claims he has to help the people in afghanistan and all that. it is dividing us. he is not bringing any body together. i am not a rich person. i am from a poor laborer family that has lost their jobs because of these eco kind of policies and all these other things, and we cannot afford to take any more money. we have lived bwithin our means. you cannot legislate my charity and you cannot take my freedoms away. you can say this is about wall street or whatever is, but we know who holds the purse strings right now and it is not republicans. i will vote my conscience, and if you decide you are going to

go against my principles of freedom and liberty, then you are going to go goodbye. my congressman in the eighth district is not representing our district by taking away our jobs. and al franken, the progressive, is going to go away, too. it is unfortunate we do not have a recall mechanism because i will guarantee you he would be gone, and so would klobuchar host: if you want to read more about the document so would klobuchar. host: if you want to read more about the president's first year in office, "a one-year report card." we found a lot of weariness, glimmers of optimism, not much good news for the democrats, writes "the wall street journal." back to the "financial times." "why obama should play to populism." "mr. obama's getting down and

dirty with them and cox is a -- this taste for getting down and dirty with them and causes a fatal misunderstanding of american politics. it is his job to make it signify something. if he chooses, financial regulatory reform is the perfect theater for him to reclaim the populism heenes is president is to survive in any form were having. take it to the bad guys, barack. remind the country where it was when republicans were still in the white house. otherwise your government will expire from its own noble fastidiousness." that is simon shama in the "financial times." madison, illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. i think that president obama is doing a good job under the circumstances. when he got into office, he had a lot of deficit. i do not think it is a democrat or republican or independent

thing, i think it is a people thing. i think we are all under the same roof, the united states, and we should all stick together and support whoever is in office, be it republican or democrat. that is one thing that we have gotten away from. we are all in this together. i thank god that he is in office because i have been unemployed for two years and because of the stimulus and everything, i have been able to feed my children with the unemployment. i do not know what i am going to do within the next few months, but right now i think he is doing a good job and that we should all just put everything -- you know, thbe one and not be against the person who is running our country. give him the respect he deserves. host: that was vanessa. new orleans, our last call.

paul, independent, what do you say? caller: this all being one -- if it was not for individuality and separation, we would not have the country that we used to have. i would like to say all the people that say he is doing a wonderful job -- i would like them to name one person. think about all the crimes that were committed by the bush administration, and i would like them to name one person who has been held accountable by this administration. that is one thing right there alone that shows that this man is an accomplice to crimes being committed by the previous administration. then they come up and say, well, all the obstructionists' with the republicans. let me remind them also that when the republicans were in full office you did not see much

obstruction coming from the democrats, did you? host: we have one half hour left in this program. when we come back, we will talk about france's response to the earthquake and the recovery in haiti. our guest will be the french ambassador to the u.s. with your calls. in the meantime, more news from c-span radio. >> it is not a cut 30 a.m. eastern time. president obama's choice to head the transportation security administration, aerroll southers, has withdrawn his nomination. his confirmation was blocked by republican senator jim demanint who is concerned that he would allow tsa employees to join a labor union. this comes as congress begins hearing testimony this morning about how a man was able to carry out a bombing attack on christmas day on a northwest airlines flight. you can hear live coverage of

the senate homeland security proceedings at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. defense secretary robert gates, speaking earlier in india, says terror groups working together around the afghanistan/pakistan border benefit from each other's success and pose a threat to the entire region. he listed several terror gripped he says operate under the umbrella of al qaeda, including the taliban and a separate group blamed for last year's attack in mumbai, india. he also said india and pakistan should cooperate against a threat that affects them both, urging both nations to speak frankly and help one another. the labor department says wholesale prices eased last month after rising in november due to energy prices falling in december. the mall, construction of new homes dipped unexpectedly last month as bad weather hit much of the country. but applications for future projects rose 11%. in a sign that the industry is ramping up. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> next week president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country and his plan to issue -- to do with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in afghanistan and iraq. the state of the union address, next wednesday, january 27, at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> abigail adams had to remind john adams to remember the ladies when creating a new government. dolly madison had to encourage her once shy husband, james. this weekend on "afterwords ," the leading ladies of our country. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is pierre vimont, the french ambassador. what should americans and

americans know -- and others know about your country's response to haiti? guest: we have now more than 500 people, rescue workers, other offices there underground working with the haitian authorities. we have three airplanes that are doing rotating flights from the martinique up to haiti, bringing food, water, etc., bringing back people that want to be evacuated. we have more planes coming from france. so far we have not been able to rescue more than 20 people. unfortunately, the french citizens, we have lost 12 people and do not know about 14 others. and we have put more than $50

million of help. this is the french proportion, of course, but we have been doing as much as we could. host: much has been made of france's reaction to the american approach to haiti. and what this country has done. we have read comments from some of your leaders, including the president. what is the french take, the french position on the american approach? guest: is a very simple one. we have been supporting and applauding what the americans have done. the president made a strong statement of the fact that he was very grateful for the mobilization of the american resources. he had a firm conversation with president obama last week, and they both agreed on the need to go on doing that and tried to coordinate in the best way possible our efforts that are being made. not only in the short term, but also in the long term, how we are going to help the

reconstruction of haiti and the long term. on this issue, there has been great support for what america has been doing, by france. host: we're talking about france's response to the haiti earthquake. we will get to your calls in a moment or two. speaking of the longer-term, "the financial times" has this headline, what is your country's approach to the long term in haiti? guest: to the long term, we do not think we should have one donor's confidence as we have in the past. we have to put it right with haiti. we have to put it all toward a lot of money into haiti in the last 10 or 15 years, as far as we can see the results are not as good as we would like to. so this time we really would like it to work.

therefore, we really need to have a long-term strategy and to work altogether. all the friends of haiti, all the countries that really want to do something, so that we get a long-term planning of the kind of help to give to haiti to help reconstruct the capital and to look at the long term objective of what can we do to help not only reconstruct the country but help build again all the political institutions and so forth. host: be more specific if you can, mr. ambassador, about long- term and the planning. we are reminded that even before the earthquake he was the poorest country in the western hemisphere. what can you do to build infrastructure and work on issues like trade and the like? guest: yes, it is not only about building infrastructure, which is quite necessary, it is helping the country to have its

own resources and help export them. it is about agriculture, helping support the reforestation of the country. if you compare on the same island what is happening center dimming go on one side, it is about agriculture, forests. it is about electricity, it is about water. it is also about justice, economic search in all its different dimensions. host: nicholas sarkozy in august of 2007 -- the first call for pierre vimont is los angeles, independent line. caller: i would just like to find out with haiti and all that, why aren't we sending aid to gaza after israel bombed got

the last year? that is the root of our terrorist problem. you're president basically is of jewish heritage -- and he to say that, but he is very biased toward israel. guest: well, not exactly. if i may correct you, i apologize for doing that but it is necessary. we have taken on the whole middle east process, a very balanced position. you should read what our president said when he went to israel precisely because he is supporting of course the security of israel. but at the same time he is very much supporting the creation of a palestinian state. what he is most looking at for the time being is to try to relaunch the peace process so that we can really have a breakthrough in the present situation in the middle east. host: what is france's approach

to iran? guest: we have the same response as the american illustration -- the american administration as well as our european partners. we are open to talking, but the problem is we have no answer as far as iran is concerned. therefore, as time goes by and as the iranian nuclear program is going ahead, it is not only france but the whole international community, through the security council in the u.n., to apply those sanctions, and to increase the sanctions. this is where we are at the moment. host: france's response to haiti. john, you are waiting on the republican line. caller: good morning. it looks like all the governments in the world are being punished right now. they are going to have to do with something with all the economic problems in the world. they are going to have to stick with this for the rest of their

career in office because this is an embarrassment to watch people die because of people behind closed doors. we only have x amount of money and resources on earth to feed these people. praise god for the people in florida that can get them out of there and the people donating their planes to get the children, at least get the children out of there. they are not at fault in desperate -- they are not at fault in this. host: is there a broad price tag on what he might cost them? what are the french prepared to do long term? guest: we have to get a good assessment of really what are the needs for haiti. it is difficult at this stage to give you any precise figure. but once the figure will be there because we are ready with all our partners around the world to bring as much money as

necessary, it is not only about money because we have done this in the past. it is also about putting the money in the right place and doing the right things and taking the right action with regard to haiti. once again, it is helping this country to have a real strong economic development as it goes ahead, which has not been the case in the past. this country's resources, long- term resources, that allow its population -- this country needs resources, long-term resources, that allow its population to take part in the whole region, in the whole economic situation of the region. this is really what it is all about. we have to do more than what we have done so far. host: has there been any talk in france about refugees from haiti, taking them out of the country into your country? guest: yes, there are a lot of adopted children, also. and refugees, if necessary,

because there are links between our country and haiti, not only in central france but also in the french territories, in the west indies -- martinique and guadeloupe -- who have increased their relations with haiti. host: so much has been written in the last week or so, the french history, the u.s. history with haiti. how do you view the country and its history? guest: it is always a country that has been close to the french people's hearts. because it is a french-speaking country. they speak a form of french called creole. there is a lot of that exchange

between haitian families and french family spirit the haitian community -- and french families. the haitian community is very important and we have very close links. this is just why, like in your country, french public opinion has been very much struck by what was happening there. there is a lot of emotion in france and a lot of generous donations that are going ahead at the moment. host: we heard from james now. you are on with the french ambassador of the united states. caller, could you turn the volume on your set down, please? caller: i am turning it down. hello? host: much better, james. go ahead. caller: i would like to commend president nicolas sarkozy for all of his efforts to help the haitians. a question to the gentleman -- why is the chinese, with the

most sustainable and strong economy and right now, why is it the u.s. has donated hundreds of millions of dollars and china has given only $1 million? if i am accurate. host: is that true, china, $1 million? guest: i am not sure of the figure. maybe the chinese will do more. i think there is a difference between the efforts made by the chinese and the efforts made by your country. it is the geographical proximity, of course. haiti is a country very close to america with strong community is inside your country, and therefore there is immediately a strong bond that appears immediately, and great emotion in your country, as in france, as i was saying. for china, maybe haiti is a little more distant and less well known. host: it makes me want to ask what you touched on at the donor's conference. tell us more about when

something like that may be held, where, who is organizing it, and who will be there. guest: good questions, difficult to answer at the moment. for the time being, what is important is the urgency and the humanitarian assistance, of course. we all know that. we still have to go search and rescue those that can be rescued. we need to work on the medical treatment of the people that are there. we need to evacuate people, bring food, water, etc. this is really for the time being what is more immediately urgent and what has to be done. once this is done, we will have to start discussing all the questions you raised -- where, when, who can come, what will be the assessment of the situation, what will be the draft plan that we can put on the table of the conference so that we can work on that.

of course, we have to work with the haitian authorities because this is their country, and in no way do we want to affect their sovereignty in any way. so all of this will have to be done in due course, but of course it cannot be done immediately as we are facing the urgency of the situation there. host: a photo in the "new york post" today. american helicopters land in front of the damaged presidential palace in port-au- prince yesterday. next call from bloomington, illinois, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is regarding -- can you tell what role the dominican republic is playing in its recovery, and maybe you are limited on some ideas, if there is the necessity to develop the mentoring and development role

between those two countries. host: can you speak to that? they share the land mass there. the island. guest: what the dominican republic is doing, and this is help for for many of the rescue operations. many of the operations cannot land at the airport because it is very small print those rescue operations are being sent to the dominican republic and going by road to haiti, so there is a lot of help there. of course, in the future as we go along, and if there is this a conference on the long-term assistance to haiti, the dominican republic will certainly play a big part in it, according to their possibilities, of course. they will certainly be very helpful because they are the neighbor of haiti, and more than anybody else they can understand what is going on in this other

part of the same island. host: another photo from the papers today, this from "the washington post." haitians waiting to leave port- au-prince and sail along the coast to the west. navy divers were working along the coast to see how much weight the dock could hold. you can see the dramatic photos here of people on these teetering boats, it seems. next call, good morning. caller: good morning, mr. ambassador. my question for you is a little bit comprehensive from the viewpoint given the history of haiti as basically in its 200 years not having a truly functional government. the haitians i know that have escaped -- and that is really what it comes down to, mr. ambassador -- they have escaped. they are terrified of their police, the government

officials, and they actually feel that these wonderful people in their position our cattle. my question to you -- i do think a sense of enlightenment in france at this point in time exists, and i sense that perhaps there is some way that your government could take the lead and help these poor people establish a system that will actually work for them. i will hang up and listen to your answer. guest: thank you for your question. i think you are right. this is a long did it -- the long political history of haiti shows that there is much to do to bring a true rule of law into that country. but let's be honest, but things have improved their for the last six or seven years.

there is still some progress to do, but there have been some changes there. what we all need to do theire -- you are right in saying that france can do its part in helping to build political institutions, helping to bring justice to the army and other fields like education, agriculture, public health. there is so much to do that we all have to do what we can to help that very poor country. this is where it is really the responsibility of the whole international community, in my opinion, and france is certainly ready to play its part, to take the lead if necessary. but i think we are not alone there. not only the united states is ready to do that, but countries like canada, brazil, and many others. the european union, for instance, has had a meeting

about haiti yesterday -- sorry, monday -- precisely to look at the short-term assistance but also the long-term assistance. there is a clear commitment from all the european countries to help. host: the images we see in the usf president obama out there several times talking about haiti -- in the u.s., of president clinton -- president obama out there several times talking about haiti, with president clinton and president bush. what is his contact like? guest: he has already had several meetings to organize french help, and he is following that day by day. just yesterday, as he was traveling in the indian ocean to some french territories, he made against the mets about haiti. so he is very much there, and the the some statements about haiti.

-- he made again some statements about haiti. he is very much mobilized on that issue. host: can you speak to private donation to the cause? guest: as far as i can see from washington, from the information i gather from my own country, there has been a tremendous public emotion on that one, and a lot of donations are being given, just like in your country. donations are flowing into the different ngo's, and therefore we are sending more help in things to those donations. host: if you want to read more opinions about haiti, you can read "the new york post." "katie's true curse," -- "haiti

's true curse." guest: there is some truth about that, but let's not be too fatalistic about that. no country is doomed to remain poor. it is really a question of political will, and not only political will, but the right way and the right answers that have to be given on the ground. i think this is really the challenge we are facing because we know what we have done in the past. it has not entirely worked. we need to do in a different way, i think. host: tacoma, washington. cheryl, on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i am wondering, ambassador, how the french government is responding to the fact that because of the french economic oppression of demanding the country of haiti prepay for the french loss of the slave trade, how france can be taking the high moral ground here when

their economic oppression has set the generation of poverty in motion. when haiti looks to the small haitian communities here, their identity with france is only language and a share more of the western ideals. i am wondering how france is responding to that historical responsibility? guest: on the question of history there will be much to say, but that is about the past and we really have to look at the future, about france's responsibility, the history of haiti, we could go on for hours. i would not like to bother you with that. but i think it is important to say that there is no arrogant attitude on the part of france, really. we are very humble on that field. we want to help haiti today, and we are not trying to lecture anybody on that.

you were talking about western values. we share those western values and we are part of the western world, and we like everybody else want to help the poor country to get out of its misery and to find a way back to economic development. it is no more than that. we know that we cannot do it alone, and we do not pretend to lecture anybody on that. we want to be part of an international effort in favor of haiti and for the benefit of the nation's population. this is really what it is all about today. host: prior to becoming ambassador, pierre vimont was the chief of foreign affairs until his current job. he has a law degree. our next call is from indianapolis. jim, on the independent line. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i pretty much want to echo what the last lady said.

historically, i do not let the u.s. off the hook, i do not let the cia off the hook, i do not let the imf off the hook. we have to look at what france has done to haiti over the years. in 1947 they finally got done paying off that debt, which was started in the 1830's. you guys are talking about $20 billion. if france wants to get right with this thing, they need to pay reparations. guest: once again, we could go back and forth on that issue, which is once again an issue that is disputed by historians. so let's not go into that and let's see how we can help and if we can give, certainly as we intend to do, more money than the money we are spending at the moment.

we will do so. there is no doubt about that. but once again, i do not think the right way to proceed in order to help haiti is to go on into a historical controversy, dating back to the beginning of the 19th century. host: a couple more minutes with our guest. time for another call or two before we wrap it up. i wanted to bring this article to your attention and get your response to it. it is below the fold in "the washington times." "france likely to sell shipped to moscow." "france is soon expected to become the first western european nato member to sell advanced military command to russia. what is going on? callerguest: we are part of a competition that has been launched by russia to buy a navy

ship, which is a carrier for instance in our country -- in our country, this type of ship is used for humanitarian assistance, the kind of ship that could be mobilized for haiti, for instance. so there is a competition to sell this pisshipped to russia. i did not know if we will win this competition, we will see. but as far as i know, there is no embargo on selling ships to russia. there is a policy of increased cooperation with russia, not only on behalf of france, but on behalf of the european union and on behalf of, i think, the united states also. this is where we are at the moment host: one last call, pennsylvania, patrick, democratic line.

caller: i was wondering if you think that he's example of old crop wheat-of overpopulation has to be done with, controlling -- of overpopulation has to be done with. what is your population plan for that island? guest: is a very old debate, and i think that many economists would tell you that population is not the problem. it can be a working force as time goes by, and it can really be an asset for a country. it all depends on, first of all, the kind of indication you can give to the young people inside that population. it depends also on the kind of agriculture you can build, the kind of economic resources you can give to that country. so in itself, population is not the issue. the real